Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ironscowl is a new user with 5 posts that are all in this thread. I think it's sketchy..

Ironscowl wrote:@visavismeyou

the vehicle is a member of the unit

As you say, the vehicle is a member of the unit. Therefore, it is a vehicle unit. SL cannot harm vehicle units. Which means SL cannot harm anything in that unit,including the embarked squad. Well, it's not quite that simple, but I won't get into that since it has little bearing on my argument (e.g., measuring to the hull is only necessary if transports provide no protection).

Wrong.

Ironscowl wrote:My argument is that the transport does provide protection. Here is my another quote from the rulebook that says a transport provides protection (which makes my position the default and the ignore-armor-position the rules change).
BRB pp65

"Vehicle Types. Transport Vehicles. Transport vehicles are designed to carry infantry squads around the battlefield. They offer to the warriors either the protection of an armoured hull to shield them from anti-personnel fire..."

So, the armoured hull protects embarked units from enemy ranged attacks that would cause damage to infantry. SL may be an exotic form of anti-personnel fire, but it still fits. That is, you must deal with the AV before you can hurt the guys inside.

This is a complete nonsequiter from the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

This would go into a sufficiently complicated Fitch-style program checker and come out valid. If anyone attempts to argue against this, he or she would be in error.

The only real discussion left is whether or not the community wants to consider this ability too powerful and thus give a cover save to the embarked units. While I find absolutely no precedence to give a cover save to embarked units within range of the Doom, I would consider acceding to the convention of granting them a 4+cover save; if it was so formed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ironscowl wrote:So, if the RAW (measure to hull) is based on not-RAW (bulk of gamer's opinion),

This antecedent makes absolutely no sense... The RAW is not based on non-RAW... thats the point of the acronym "Raw". The clarification to your confusion is in the RAW... I've already quoted it...

Ironscowl wrote:To bypass this protection, a specific rule must give specific permission to ignore the armored hull.

Wrong.

Ironscowl wrote:It clears up those other questions, like does a Vehicle Destroyed affect embarked troops in a nearby transport

No, actually, 'it' does not, RAW clears that confusion up, but I quoted that too and I doubt you read it.

visavismeyou wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Timmah wrote:So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

It's questionable, there's no rule for measuring to a single aspect of a unit in a vehicle, so a case could be made that it doesn't work.

However, the way I see it is, you can measure to a single aspect of a unit, as long as it doesn't call for a model.

So, "within 24 inches of the librarian" is fine, but if it were "within 24 inches of the librarian model" it would not be, as the model is not on the table.

Admittedly though, it's a gray area.

Its not a gray area at all, its quite clear, read the Embarking rule under "Transport Vehicles".

It is a gray area, you have rules for measuring to the librarian's unit, which you might get away with using if he is an IC, but if he is attached to another squad, there's no rules that specifically allow for measuring to a single person in a unit.

Drunkspleen wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Timmah wrote:So, if I can't measure to 'models' in a transport, does that mean I can't use a psychic hood to nullify powers if my librarian is inside a transport?

It's questionable, there's no rule for measuring to a single aspect of a unit in a vehicle, so a case could be made that it doesn't work.

However, the way I see it is, you can measure to a single aspect of a unit, as long as it doesn't call for a model.

So, "within 24 inches of the librarian" is fine, but if it were "within 24 inches of the librarian model" it would not be, as the model is not on the table.

Admittedly though, it's a gray area.

Its not a gray area at all, its quite clear, read the Embarking rule under "Transport Vehicles".

It is a gray area, you have rules for measuring to the librarian's unit, which you might get away with using if he is an IC, but if he is attached to another squad, there's no rules that specifically allow for measuring to a single person in a unit.

Actually, it is not a gray area, as I have already quoted, the rules quite clearly state that if any query in the game is trying to find where an embarked unit is at, you measure to the hull. Since the Doom clearly states that you measure to a unit and then take a 3d6 leadership test if any part of that unit is inside the 6 inches and they fail the leadership tests, that unit takes wounds, there is no gray area...

Gray area would require that there be some fuzzy part in this string of sound logic I demonstrated. Each rule clearly follows from the previous and clearly relates to the next.


P -> Q
Q -> R
R -> S
---------
P -> S

irrefutable.

According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here). Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple. The proposed combination of the rules used to make this argument, arguably could be interpreted and thusly intended to define such things as only passive effects used by same player. (Leadership checks come to mind - and I’ll add before some troll rolls his eyes, not those for morale purposes. As embarked troops are not required to make them).

Yak further pushes his view, Yak goes on to state in a very lengthy, and by the way very well written, post stating that embarked troops are somehow overpowered until this ruling was made to address Doom. Not only is this a false assumption but holds no basis to which to lay this argument in the first place.

I cannot believe, and nor should others, that until Doom came out everything was fine and then suddenly there was this gigantic hole in the rules regarding transports and embarked troops. This one is right up there with Ku'gaths shooting attack doesn’t' count for the herald's tally cuz he fired it in the same FAQ- I mean really? really? Mark of Nurgle-check, wait what? Nor is that the only House rule that should questioned, there are several. (I digress, the FAQ overall has value and is well written, but with an obvious slant)

It's inception ignores other rules dealing with how those models are treated for a favorable result when using Doom, rules that all the other powers seem to abide by...
Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

deevil wrote:According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here).

Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
It's been very very clearly explained repeatedly, and is entirely RAW supported.
Simply saying 'it's wrong' or 'this other thing that I think works means its crazy' with no rule-based arguments is worthless. Highfiving yourself over how great your points are after they're had huge holes poked in them isn't helping anyone.

deevil wrote:Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple.
Yak further pushes his view
troll
the FAQ overall [is written] with an obvious slant

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:Ironscowl is a new user with 5 posts that are all in this thread. I think it's sketchy..

Indeed. It seems like lots of people are using low-post alts to call people out today.

visavismeyou wrote:Actually, it is not a gray area, as I have already quoted, the rules quite clearly state that if any query in the game is trying to find where an embarked unit is at, you measure to the hull. Since the Doom clearly states that you measure to a unit and then take a 3d6 leadership test if any part of that unit is inside the 6 inches and they fail the leadership tests, that unit takes wounds, there is no gray area...

Gray area would require that there be some fuzzy part in this string of sound logic I demonstrated. Each rule clearly follows from the previous and clearly relates to the next.


P -> Q
Q -> R
R -> S
---------
P -> S

irrefutable.

Do you even know what you are talking about, or more importantly, what other people are talking about.

I am discussing the lack of any clear rules letting you measure to an individual member of an embarked unit, such as a Librarian with a psychic hood, attached to another unit.

While you can measure to the Librarian's unit, you don't have a rule specifically allowing to determine distance to the librarian.

And you don't appear to be addressing this at all, but rather babbling on about things entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand.

I really feel I must warn you, if you continue to demonstrate an absolute inability to read and comprehend other people's perfect acceptable posts, you will probably find people will have little interest in your ability to read and comprehend the rules, or potential lack thereof.

Ironscowl wrote:Believe it or not, I did consider whether this was fluff beore I posted. This quote is in the rules section (of the small rulebook, I don't have the BRB). iirc, there are no fluff stories in the rules section. It does not have the legalese sound of declaring measure x to do y. But neither does it have the fluffy tone of something like SM kill everything. The Vehicle section I quoted is the summary of what the vehicles do. When in doubt, use that.

So a sentence describing something whihch has no IN GAME effect does not meet your definition of fluff? Please show the *in game* effect of this "rule" you are proposing? HOW does it offer protection?

Sorry, the entire BRB is full of fluff.

Ironscowl wrote:Actually, I had considered this too. The transport is a Vehicle Unit, whereas the embarked troops are an Infantry unit. Their unit type does not change just by being embarked. So I happily yield this point since it is not integral to my point (which is the armored hull provides protection, which means measuring has no bearing). It was merely a subset of my argument that was pointing out how messy things can get with the spirit-ignores-armor ruling. Since, upon re-reading Yakface's post, he does acknowledge those difficulties, I feel it is not necessary to belabor that subset of my reasoning any further.

Except that it *does* matter. You have yet to show how the vehicle actually offers protection using something defined *in game* - the *fluff* you quoted before is just that, fluff. It has absolutely no rules basis, has no in game effect, and does not use any of the in game terms to define what it is doing. In short, it is not a rule.

Please provide a *rule* showing HOW vehicles protect their passengers, or you are done here.

deevil wrote:According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here). Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple. The proposed combination of the rules used to make this argument, arguably could be interpreted and thusly intended to define such things as only passive effects used by same player. (Leadership checks come to mind - and I’ll add before some troll rolls his eyes, not those for morale purposes. As embarked troops are not required to make them).

The ruling we have gone with those two situations are that Boon of Mutation requires the player to choose a model, as embarked models aren't on the table there is no model to choose. Aura of Decay, just like a vehicle explosion affects models within a certain range. While an embarked unit may be within the specified range, no models from the embarked unit actually are and therefore they are not affected.

While you obviously don't agree with the ruling I believe there is certainly consistency behind it.

Yak further pushes his view, Yak goes on to state in a very lengthy, and by the way very well written, post stating that embarked troops are somehow overpowered until this ruling was made to address Doom. Not only is this a false assumption but holds no basis to which to lay this argument in the first place.

I made no attempt to discuss the power level of embarked units in the game and nor does this have any bearing on whether or not Spirit Leech should work against an embarked unit, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to.

I cannot believe, and nor should others, that until Doom came out everything was fine and then suddenly there was this gigantic hole in the rules regarding transports and embarked troops. This one is right up there with Ku'gaths shooting attack doesn’t' count for the herald's tally cuz he fired it in the same FAQ- I mean really? really? Mark of Nurgle-check, wait what? Nor is that the only House rule that should questioned, there are several. (I digress, the FAQ overall has value and is well written, but with an obvious slant)

It's inception ignores other rules dealing with how those models are treated for a favorable result when using Doom, rules that all the other powers seem to abide by...
Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

Ku'gath? In the INAT? Now I'm really confused. The only reference we have to Ku'gath is that he does count towards the tally...or are you saying that his shooting attack shouldn't count?

And in my lengthy post I cover exactly what you're bringing up...there has always been a hole in the rules but players have always had an obvious 'absurdity' clause enabling them to simply ignore what the rules were saying.

Our ruling regarding Spirit Leech affecting an embarked unit is the RAW as far as I can tell...yes some 'house rules' are then required to cover what happens when some of the more bizarre things occur when Spirit Leech causes wounds on the embarked unit but again, at its core, the rules *DO* allow Spirit Leech to affect an embarked unit.

So are you advocating that we should have ruled that Spirit Leech doesn't affect embarked units? Because you do know that this would be making a 'house rule' (at least as far as I see it, correct?

Interesting, I just thanked Yakface for his civilized behavior, and all the personal attacks come out right after.

@HiveFleetGoliath

Ironscowl is a new user with 5 posts that are all in this thread. I think it's sketchy..

At 111 posts I suppose that makes you more than 22 times smarter than me, or more knowledgeable, or less sketchy. Then again, you are more than 114 times more sketchy than Yakface, who must therefore be some kind of infallible god. Now all you have to do is make fun of more new people (without adding anything to the debate even!) and your e-peen unsketchiness can swell even more.

I would guess from your sig that you are tyranid and have a personal reason for the ruling to come out in your favor. Congratulations then, enough of the voting members of one tournament board supports you. Thank you for contributing.

@Visevismeyou
I do not respond much to you since you seem to have selective reading. You are still attacking a point that I have already yielded. Your response of “Wrong” is very enlightening.

Your Fitch style program is a red herring and completely ignores my points. If you do not understand something, then go back and re-read the thread starting with Yakface’s treatise on page two. Then you would understand that the “not-RAW (bulk of gamer’s opinion)” refers to Yakface’s “absurdity defense.”

Your second wrong is also very informative. It was my understanding that a general rule takes precedence unless a specific rule overrides it.

@nosferatu
Please quote a separate boxed entry in the rules section that is fluff. You will find they are all explanations or rationalizations for why a rule exists or how to utilize a rule.

@Yakface
I know you can find fluff in the codices. But I am specifically speaking about the rules section of the rulebook.

Of those debating against me, it seems only Yakface understands my argument. The crux of the matter is whether vehicles protect embarked units or not.

pp60

“Vehicle Facing and Armour Values. Not all vehicles are equally armored. Some massive tanks are protected by countless layers of reinforced adamantium and ceramite plates, while other lighter vehicles rely more on their speed to avoid incoming fire. As such, each different type of vehicle will have different Armour Values, representing not just the thickness and slope of its armour, but also how difficult a target it is because of its size and speed, how tough and numerous its crew are, and so on… Armour Penetration. Hitting a vehicle is no guarantee that you will actually damage it…”

A vehicle’s armour value is derived from its armoured hull and speed. This is the same wording for what protection is afforded by a transport to its embarked unit, as previously quoted. So, in “Fitch’s” terms:

P1) The armour and speed of a transport protects embarked units.
P2) The armour and speed of a vehicle is represented by its Armour Value.

C1) The Armour Value protects the embarked unit.

Any ranged attack must deal with the Armour Value before damaging embarked units. To be explicit, you must hit the vehicle, penetrate the armour, and destroy/explode the vehicle before any damage can be inflicted upon transported units (in general).

In game terms, Spirit Leech has hit the vehicle (if within 6"), but cannot penetrate the armour since Strength 0 plus d6 cannot penetrate AV10+. Unless the passengers disembark, the protection provided by the armoured hull’s AV prevents SL from hurting them.

All of this gets back to Yakface's rationale for allowing SL to ignore the armour of a transport, which has to do with the absurdity defense. He says SL can somehow pass through solid objects unhindered and thus ignore armour (yet give cover). I say SL is like any other ranged attack and cannot merely pass through armour (since SL does not explicitly give permission to ignore AV; it has no affect on the vehicle crew, etc.).

Ironscowl wrote:At 111 posts I suppose that makes you more than 22 times smarter than me, or more knowledgeable, or less sketchy. Then again, you are more than 114 times more sketchy than Yakface, who must therefore be some kind of infallible god.

Glad to see you know what the deal is

Sorry, an "explanation on how to use a rule" is still "fluff", as are rationalisations of how to use a rule.

A rule is something that has an ingame specific effect. Your Propositions are not based on "in game" rules but explanations of what an armour value is.

You need to quote a *rule* that states how Embarked passengers are protected from harm. An actual, in game effect *rule* that states something similar to "passengers in a vehicle cannot be directly harmed by any enemy action or effect" . So far you have used *fluff* and explanations of rules (not actual rules themselves) and tha thas NO place in a rules argument.

OK, stupid question time here guys, so I can understand what people are saying here.

Is models = units or models =/= units?

I mean is models and units interchangable or not?

So if something says model and not unit, then the unit is not effected, but if something says unit, then all the models are effected?

I thought I read somewhere that model and unit is interchangeable, but now I can't find that rule. (funny when I want to find a specific rule I can never find it lol, just like the missing keys, when you want them you can never find them but as soon as you dont need it, you find it )

"Unit" is an abstract term for a group of model.

Sometimes you are required to interact with the unit, sometimes you are called upon to determine what each model is doing.

Specifically when measuring to a *unit* embarked on a trasnport you can do this, as you are given rules for doing so. You cannot, however measure to *models* within the unit as you have no rules for how to do so.

In the case of vehicles with embarked models, "unit" is an entirely abstract concept, as the physical models arent even on th table.

sigh.

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) Embarked units are a unit.
P3) Range to the embarked unit is measured to the vehicle's hull (pg 66).

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech affects embarked units if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

e.g.

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

In other words this is a fabricated house rule, based on a logical arguement. And frankly may not have anything to do with the original intent of the rule itself.

At the end of day your oppenent could argue the same, which again points to the failure of this arguement.

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) All Embarked models are a unit.
P3) All models are off the table in an embarked unit

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units regardless if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for the record Gorkamorka, I am not some 'alt' I just prefer to read anonymously rather than post as my full time job. Nor am I 'highfiving' myself. I understand's Yaks arguement, I simply do not agree, as it IS flawed (so is mine btw). The HUGE holes of which you speak and used to detemine the validity is also flawed, as many posters have stated before me. If it wasn't there would be no arguement.

At the end of the day unless powers like Doom's specifically and not abstractly, or through inference, affects something it does not. You adherence to the term unit/model is irrelevant as they are interchangable, per the definition found in the book. For an example a single model unit can embark on a transport is both a unit and a model simultaneously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I made no attempt to discuss the power level of embarked units in the game and nor does this have any bearing on whether or not Spirit Leech should work against an embarked unit, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to.

I agree I think I misread you uber post, my apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for Ku'gath and the tallyman of Nurgle. it was part of this FAQ at one time (it may still be I have not checked it again since reading that),
But at one time the Large blast made by Ku'gath did not contribute to the tallymans count. That was the reference I was making.

deevil wrote:

P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) All Embarked models are a unit.
P3) All models are off the table in an embarked unit

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units regardless if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Spirit Leech makes no mention of models, only units. P3 is irrelevant.

By P2 (all embarked models are a unit) and P1 (Spirit Leech affects all units within range) and p66 of the rulebook (which tells us how to measure to embarked units), embarked units are affected by Spirit Leech.

This has been an interesteing thread to read, but I really wasnt planning on posting until a discussion yesterday with a friend.

One of the fundamental points to accepting that Spirit leach affects units inside transports is that people would expect to play it that way. In other words, the idea is that people would accept that idea that the spirit leach power can reach through transport walls. Seemed reasonable enough of an idea, until ....

Couple of guys at the FLGS were playing a game and I was partially watching, then came over after a rules question and wathced the rest of the game. It was tyranids vs orcs, the ork player has been wanting to try out a possible BW army as much as possible lately. The tyranid player knew he was going to be playing vs orks, so he brought along the doom for fun.

Early on I mentioned how the spirit leach power would affect troops inside transports if they were within range, both players accepted the idea and seemd to get it. When I stopped by later it turns out they accepted it, but not the RAW. They were playing that spirit leach only affected the transported unit if the range reached the passenger compartment. When I explained how distance was actually measured to any point on the hull both players thought I was crazy.



So.... Just wanted to point out that the player base may not be thinking this is as natural of a ruling as is being assumed here.


Yes, once players fully understand the RAW and the rationale for why the ruling was made it may be fully accepted. But thinking that this version is going to reduce the number of rules questions at a tourney may be wishful thinking.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:
Early on I mentioned how the spirit leach power would affect troops inside transports if they were within range, both players accepted the idea and seemd to get it. When I stopped by later it turns out they accepted it, but not the RAW. They were playing that spirit leach only affected the transported unit if the range reached the passenger compartment. When I explained how distance was actually measured to any point on the hull both players thought I was crazy.

So.... Just wanted to point out that the player base may not be thinking this is as natural of a ruling as is being assumed here.

That's not the ruling or the rules fault, the players were just completely misinformed.

They're the same type who play that you can draw LOS to and shoot at units in open topped transports because 'it obviously makes sense I mean the ork is standing right there in the back of your trukk' and get all confused when shown the actual rules or asked to show support in the rulebook for their actions.

'well obviously the orks are all in the back part of the battlewagon' doesn't mean the players are intentionally playing it differently from the ruling and the ruling is at fault, it means they simply don't understand the basic rules involved.

I know...but the only reason I brought it up was that it struck against the idea that this is the way the bulk of the player base would automatically play the Doom's spirit leach ability.

Granted they dont understand the RAW in this case. Its just that if the Inat faq is being influenced in parts by how people will "naturally" play then it might be important if people have some natural thoughts on how its played that arent being considered.

Taking a quick straw poll of 40k players at the store last night the majority were of the opinion that the power was some variant of a psychic power, so it wouldnt affect units in vehicles. Pointing out that it wasnt listed as a psychic power brought this response from the tyranid player:

"Its not an active psychic power, its a passive one like the warlock powers the eldar have. All of the tyranid passive powers like warp field are that way"


So just expect this one to be messy instead of easy, no matter what the ruling is.



Sliggoth

So just expect this one to be messy instead of easy, no matter what the ruling is.

I think this was exactly Yakface's point, there is no obvious way people will rule it and it will be hotly debated until an FAQ comes out. So they followed as closely to the RAW as was reasonable (still not sure where they got the cover save from though).

deevil wrote:

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

Wrong! Because Dogs don't eat all cats in range. Also, Your point doesn't make any sense. Do you want me to explain why?

deevil wrote:According to Yak's rational, which I certainly am not agreeing to, then both Boon of Mutation, 'pick any model'-no line of sight required, and Aura of Decay would both work on embarked troops (just two examples- there are many, some of which have been mentioned in this thread already and therefore do not warrant being repeated again here).

Boon of Mutation

Boon of Mutation is a ranged weapon, but the daemon may be in close combat at the time it uses, as may the target. Pick any one enemy model (no line of sight required) and roll to hit. If a hit is scored and the target is found to be within 6" of the Daemon, the target must immediately take a toughness test.

Embarking (Rules Section: Vehicles)

A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its access points in the Movement phase. ... If the players need to measure a range involving the embarked unit, this range is measured to or from the vehicle's hull

you cant stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the fact that there is a difference between a Model and a Unit. You cannot target a model inside a vehicle... One fun note is this:

Rules Section: The Shooting Phase

When you're checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.

Even though you ignore LoS with Boon of Mutation, you still have to find a model to measure to. If it said unit instead of model, your point would be relevant, however, you have to ignore the rules in order to maintain your point.

deevil wrote:Yak, and others, are exploiting a combination of muddy rulings to maximize a potential not clearly defined. It's a house rule, and frankly rules lawyer-ing pure and simple. The proposed combination of the rules used to make this argument, arguably could be interpreted and thusly intended to define such things as only passive effects used by same player. (Leadership checks come to mind - and I’ll add before some troll rolls his eyes, not those for morale purposes. As embarked troops are not required to make them).

Wrong, there have been no muddy rulings quoted yet; in reality, we've quoted the rules as they are written. Please point out precisely where we have relied on muddy rulings. It is not house rules.

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

deevil wrote:It's inception ignores other rules dealing with how those models are treated for a favorable result when using Doom, rules that all the other powers seem to abide by...
Don is right in that model or unit, the designation does not matter as per the rules put forth in the book. They are the same.

Wrong, "unit" and "model" are not even remotely similar... If I cared more I'd hop over to MS Paint and make a Venn Diagram for you to demonstrate how wrong you are. Saying this demonstrates that you have a severe lack of understanding of the basics of this game... severe...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deevil wrote:

P1) Dogs eat all cats within its range.
P2) All jaguar(cars) are cats
P3) Range to the jaguar(car) is measured to the jaguars body

C1) Therefore, Dogs eat jaguar-cars if found to be within range.

go look up the word equivocation... Please tell me this was a joke.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deevil wrote:This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

Wrong, the problem is that you do not know even the basics of logic. You have made the following fallacies in this one post:

deevil wrote:Arguements like this although logically valid cannot be used as the sole means of determining it's validity.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, you think that or believe you are right, therefore, you conclude, that you are right.

deevil wrote:Since we know that dogs don't eat cars, we know the argument is false, even if it is logically true statement.

Sophists really love doing this, and you're no exception. In your 3 premises, you made no less than 4 obvious errors. You equivocated, you blatantly misused the universal quantifier, and you assumed, without sufficient reason, that all jaguar cars are cats...

Ex nihilo nehil fit, in common parlance, garbage in, garbage out. Your argument proceeded from absolute trash, and, as we expect, you conclude complete garbage.

deevil wrote:This is the problem, these are assumptions made based on a argument that can easily be proven false.

Your sophistry fueled your errors, and your sophistry puts your head in the sand while we use logic properly, you simply fail at basic thinking.

deevil wrote:P1) Spirit Leech affects all units within its (rolled) range.
P2) All Embarked models are a unit.
P3) All models are off the table in an embarked unit

C1) Therefore, Spirit Leech does not affect embarked units regardless if the hull of their transport vehicle is found to be within range.

Not only does this completely ignore the rule book as written (Sections on embarked models, measuring, the wording of SL, the wording of measuring), it doesn't even make sense in the common method that people play the game... Typically there are two sides to this debate about SL, people who want to play the game as the average player actually plays it, and people who want to focus on the rules as being paramount. You are abandoning all reason and just jumping into a pit of fail.

This conclusion is a nonsequiter, it does not follow from p1,p2,p3. Why? Because you do not provide any justification in your premises that displays that SL does not affect embarked units. You pull that completely out of the air you ignore the Principle of Sufficient Reason. SL affects units in its range, the hull of the vehicle is within its range... Embarked rules dictate that when you are measuring to an embarked unit, you measure to the hull... therefore SL affects embarked units... You notice how each of my premises have relevance to the next and to the conclusion? Also, i'm using the correct definition and I am not equivocating like you do... rules as written... Try reading them.

deevil wrote:I understand's Yaks arguement, I simply do not agree, as it IS flawed

Wrong, you do not understand Yaks argument, you cannot even grasp the basis of the logic involved, you have presented pure sophistry to attempt to debase a sound argument. You have provided fallacious arguments as if they are valid.

deevil wrote:If it wasn't there would be no arguement.

Wrong, as you have so aptly demonstrate, people can provide sophistry and nonsense as argument ad nauseam. You stick your head in the sand and say you're right because you think your opposition is wrong. Too bad for you logic is infallible; those who think otherwise dont understand it.

deevil wrote:At the end of the day unless powers like Doom's specifically and not abstractly, or through inference, affects something it does not

Wrong, there is no abstraction, rules as written demonstrate that Doom works the way we're saying it does. There has been no inference posited, again, you are misusing a technical term of logic, thus proving (right now i'm posing an argument of inferential logic or proof by cases) that you do not understand even the basics of logic...


Oh and Q.E.D.

I'm STILL shocked there is an arguement here on dakka where some people dont understand the difference between a Unit and a Model.

visavismeyou wrote:

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

thusly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1865

: in this manner : thus

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Melchiour wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

thusly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1865

: in this manner : thus

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Since when can we use non-English Dictionaries to define English Words?

I am confused. Merriam Webster is an English dictionary.

OK, the core problem locally seems to be that players understand spirit leach to be a psychic ability/ effect. For years GW has had psychers with two types of abilities:

1) Powers- Active abilities that function at the players discretion, require a leadership test to use.

2) Abilities (for lack of a better word)- Passive psychic powers. Ie, abilities that are always on and function without any discretion from the controlling player.

In some earlier rules, both types are called psychic powers (altho one has to dig a bit to find the reference to warlock powers being called psychic powers). In the tyranid codex things are both much more clear and much more sloppy. There is a page that references all of the active psychic powers. But....most of the passive psychic type powers are either not so labelled or are murky.

The questions about spirit leach tie directly into the whole question about what are now passive psychic powers.



Sliggoth

Melchiour wrote:I am confused. Merriam Webster is an English dictionary.

No, The Oxford English Dictionary is an English Dictionary. Merriam Webster is an American-English Dictionary.

Melchiour wrote:

visavismeyou wrote:

Oh and btw THUSLY IS NOT A WORD. Sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.

thusly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1865

: in this manner : thus

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

Sorry, 'thusly' is only in the dictionary to let ignorant people know that it actually means 'thus'. Look at the history of the word thus.

Since 'thus' is already an adverb, if you add 'ly' on the end it is redundant, sort of like saying 'Automated ATM Machine'... Its just pure ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Melchiour wrote:I am confused. Merriam Webster is an English dictionary.

No, The Oxford English Dictionary is an English Dictionary. Merriam Webster is an American-English Dictionary.

Oh yea, I keep forgetting that many of you are Brits, well hey, as an American, I prefer your academics and formal writing styles over American counterparts.

The flags next to our names are a clue